Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 83 Number 83 Fall Article 15 9-2020 Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies János Jany Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, History Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Jany, János (2020) "Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 83 : No. 83 , Article 15. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol83/iss83/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Jany: Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies Comparative Civilizations Review 67 Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies János Jany [email protected] Department of International Studies, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary Abstract The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that the current Iranian regime is no novelty in Iranian history and political thinking, but has two antecedents: the rule of the Sasanians in late Antiquity (3rd–7th centuries) and that of the Safavids (16th–18th centuries) in modern times. After a brief outline of relevant historical events the paper scrutinizes the common features of these three regimes. The comparison includes the analyses of foreign policy, its scope, aim and direction, cultural policy and the relevance of political ideologies, socio-economic policy, religious policy, political structure and mechanisms of decision-making. The results of the comparison are visualized in a table pointing out numerous similarities and remarkable common features throughout the centuries. Keywords: Iran, hierocracy, comparative politics, religion Introduction The nature and causes of the Islamic revolution have been the focus of attention of social scientists for decades, but the answers they have provided for this undoubtedly complex phenomenon emphasize considerably different aspects. There is an enormous amount of literature dealing with the subject. Some deal with the Iranian revolution within the theoretical framework of Islamism and underline that the Iranian revolution is a manifestation of modern political Islam.1 These writers are interested in what can be fitted into the theoretical framework of political Islam and pay less attention to the historical and cultural background of Iranian society. 1 Peter Mandaville: Global Political Islam. Routledge: London: 2007: 179-197; Olivier Roy: The Failure of Political Islam. I. B. Tauris: London: 1994: 168-183; Olivier Roy: Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Umma. Columbia University Press: New York: 2004: 83-88; Mohammed Ayoob: The Many Faces of Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Muslim World. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor: 2008: 42-63; Tarek Osman: Islamism. A History of Political Islam from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Rise of ISIS. Yale University Press: New Haven and London: 2016:189-216. Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 2020 1 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 83 [2020], No. 83, Art. 15 68 Number 83, Fall 2020 Other writings are works of modern historians pointing out Iranian socio-economic peculiarities in detail, while putting less emphasis on ideological features.2 This essay does not belong to either of these types, since it intends to approach the problem rather from the global viewpoint of history. As we will see, the current system is not the only hierocratic form of rule in Iran, but it has two antecedents during the long history of the Iranian nation. That is why it seems worthwhile to compare and contrast these systems, and to underline similarities and differences between them, which in turn will also provide us with the opportunity to draw more general conclusions. 1. Turning points in Iranian history A history going back thousands of years could not be told in one article; therefore, I will highlight only some decisive turning points in Iranian history that will help to understand the main arguments of this paper. 1.1 Ancient Iran Pastoralist tribes speaking various dialects of Iranian languages arrived on the Iranian plateau around 1000 BCE and settled down in Western Iran along the Zagros Mountains. Tribes which later came to be known as Medes settled close to the eastern border of the then powerful Assyrians, a military hegemon of the Ancient Near East which regarded the presence of the Median tribal confederacy both as a military threat and an opportunity to gain horses which the Assyrian army greatly needed. As a result, wars were fought with Assyrian victories, but when the Median leaders formed an alliance with the Babylonians, they were powerful enough to drastically change events. In a couple of years, the most important Assyrian cities, including the capital, fell into the hands of the allied forces and the last battle in 610 BCE diminished the Assyrian state altogether. The territory of the former Assyrian state was divided between the Medes and the Babylonians, two powerful empires which regarded each other more and more as rivals, not allies. Open hostilities were abandoned, however, and the next decades witnessed an equilibrium of forces in the Near East.3 2 Charles Kurzman: The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.: 2005; Nikkie R. Keddie: Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution: Yale University Press: New Haven: 2003: 214-240; Ervand Abrahamian: Khomeinism. Essays on the Islamic Republic. University of California Press: Berkeley: 1993; Said Amir Arjomand. After Khomeini: Iran under His Successors. Oxford University Press: Oxford: 2009. David Menashri: Post-Revolutionary Politics in Iran. Routledge: New York: 2001. 3 For more on these wars see: Amelie Kuhrt: The Persian Empire. Routledge: London: 2009: 19-46. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol83/iss83/15 2 Jany: Political Power of Iranian Hierocracies Comparative Civilizations Review 69 This situation came to an end when Kurush (Cyrus), backed by the Persian tribes, revolted against Astyages, the last king of the Medes, and secured his victory on the battlefield near Pasargade with the help of the Median aristocracy changing sides. With the great wars of Cyrus and his son Cambyses (530–522 BCE), the Persian Empire grew to an unprecedented extent, including territories from Egypt to Afghanistan, and Pakistan to Bulgaria and Greece. Although Darius I and his son, Xerxes, ultimately lost the Greek wars, it was by no means a great disaster for the Persians. The real problems were found within the empire itself: ineffective government, heavy taxation, open revolts and harem intrigues prevented the Achaemenid Empire from stabilizing itself in a radically changing environment (the rise of the Macedonians; the secession of Egypt; and the wars of the governors with each other). When Alexander sought revenge for Athens, he found a disorganized state which fell to him within a few years. But Alexander seems to have had no strategy for the future, or at least was prevented from acting accordingly by his early death, a consequence of his dissolute lifestyle. As a result, open hostility broke out between his former commanders to decide succession, with Seleukos emerging as victor (Ipsos: 301 BCE). This is how the Seleucids came to power in Iran and the Near East.4 But Seleucid power did not last for long in Iran because they lost more and more territories to an Eastern Iranian tribal federation, the Parnis. The Parnis settled down in the north-eastern province of Iran already known during Achaemenian times as Parthava. They were renamed after it, which is the reason they are called Parthians today. The Parthians annexed Iran and later also Mesopotamia from the Seleucids and under strong leadership by kings, such as Mithridates I (171–138 ) and Mithridates II (123–87), they established an Iranian empire large enough to be a dangerous rival to the Romans during the coming centuries. The Parthians restored the Achaemenid Empire without the territories of Egypt, Asia Minor and Palestine, although they did everything to have access to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria and Palestine. The Romans, for their part, wanted to prevent the Parthians from occupying these strategically important territories, both for military 4 A classic about this period is Albert T. Olmstead’s: History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press: 1948; fine comprehensive surveys are Richard N. Frye’s: The Heritage of Persia. The World Publishing Company: Cleveland and New York: 1963: 53-114 and Josef Wiesehöfer’s: Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD. I. B. Tauris: London 1996: 5-102; the work of Muhammad Dandamaev and Vladimir Lukonin: The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 1989 discusses political, economic and social institutions and various aspects of cultural life; recently Amelie Kuhrt’s: The Persian Empire. Routledge: London: 2009 covers the topic and the period in the same depth. Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 2020 3 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 83 [2020], No. 83, Art. 15 70 Number 83, Fall 2020 reasons and for long distance trade, resulting in unavoidable hostilities. The great